Danny Alexander on QT

ILW

Why not make entry more difficult academically, this would reduce the numbers to a very bright elite and would solve most of the funding problems. I do not understand the idea that virtually everybody should go to University, even if they are not that bright.

Graham_Devon

blueboy43 wrote: »

This is the fallacy of using historical data and assuming it will be the case in the future.

It is only a few years since it was stated that a graduate would earn £400k more over a lifetime.

But then theres a lot more graduates these days, are there not? So demand is lower?

We've got 3 people at work who went through Uni, have come out with qualifications, but don't actually do anything with them, and have no intentions to do so. It was the life they went for, they've openly said so, and not having gone to uni (though my immediate peers didnt either) I do feel I lost out on that life, from what they have said, sounds like a constant hoot.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But then theres a lot more graduates these days, are there not? So demand is lower?

In other words degrees in general have been devalued to where they are worth very little.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

In other words degrees in general have been devalued to where they are worth very little.

Suppose it depends on what you aim to do. Many jobs simply need degrees, but there do seem to be quite a lot of people who have degrees, but don't work in the same field.

tomterm8

leveller2911 wrote: »

But on obtaining a degree they will earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than someone who doesn't so they are still up £79k on average..

Sounds pretty good to me.......

The problem with such logic is that the other side of the argument is that according to the most recent OECD survey, on average society benefits on net by more than £80k for every student who graduates.

So shouldn't society also pay something towards the cost of education?

This society seems to penalise anyone who tries to make anything out of their life, while giving scroungers a completely free ride. Why should we pay people job seekers allowance to sit on their !!!!!! all day, sometimes for years at a time, while kicking the teeth in of people who plan to contribute a hell of a lot to society by their hard work?

ukcarper

tomterm8 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can think the situation for students has been improving over the last 10 years. When my mother went to university, students had a grant that was set at a good living wage, and tuition was free. By the time I went to university, grants had been abolished, and there were small tuition fees. If these changes come in, the entire burden of paying for university will fall on students to the tune of around £21k

But it's a lot easier to fund 5% of population going to uni than 50%

tomterm8

ukcarper wrote: »

But it's a lot easier to fund 5% of population going to uni than 50%

I've never said that we should have 50% of the population going to university. University should be elitist... in my opinion, of course.

leveller2911

tomterm8 wrote: »

So shouldn't society also pay something towards the cost of education?




This society seems to penalise anyone who tries to make anything out of their life, while giving scroungers a completely free ride. Why should we pay people job seekers allowance to sit on their !!!!!! all day, sometimes for years at a time, while kicking the teeth in of people who plan to contribute a hell of a lot to society by their hard work?

1/ Society does pay towards the cost of education up to the age of 16, 18 for colleges.

2/ I totally agree, we shouldn't pay job seekers allowance for years but thats for another thread.More than happy to dabate lazy work shy toe-rags but it would cloud the issue on this thread..

We can all constribute a hell of a lot to society without going the need of going to University...

ukcarper

A quick question the deficit has been given as the reason for this change but will it do anything to help that in the short term. The Government will lend the students the money instead of just paying fees but the students won’t start to pay back the money for a least 3 years probably more as they need to earn over £21k.

Sapphire

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

]
]I would in fact argue that students are the free-thinkers.

Not in our society, they ain't. Ipods, live of taxpayers, banal speech, 'I'm worth it' mentality, sod moral and political issues, etc. Never used to be like that – students were once at the forefront of new ideas and movements.

You don't need to go to a 'uni' to achieve a high position in many companies. The best route 'upwards' is by starting young in a company, being trained, and learning from those around you.

You do need to go to university to be a doctor, lawyer or scientist, or in an academic profession. Perhaps students in these subjects in particular should be subsidized by taxpayers who have been to university themselves at the taxpayer's expense (but not by those who have not had this benefit).